The US isn't going to become a dictatorship in 8 years, in 2008 the ruling party is going to lose massively at the polls.
I would love to believe you. Except that a large percentage of the votes are counted by two companies, Diebold and ESS, and two brothers are the VP of one and President of the other.
So if the major party is counting the polls, what's gonna happen? They learned their lesson from the previously-attempted dictatorships; no more 100% like Saddam, and no more close calls that might cause voter concern. The polls will come in between 60/40 and 70/30.
We should achieve full-blown nanotechnology in 10 years or so; 30 on the outside. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear war will prevent us from acheiving this. Nations may attempt to ban it, but they will fall behind and be made less relevant to science.
It is difficult to predict the future after the Singularity happens, which achieving nanotechnology will bring us basically to (having the Foresight Institute's two achievements required for the Feynman Grand Prize (a computing device and a robot arm) will allow us to quickly develop the ability to reproduce and improve upon the human brain; one way to Singularity is to create an ultraintelligent machine, which is capable of designing better machines, ad nauseum).
My answer, when asked where I will be in 50 years, is generally "around some distant star, setting up a Dyson sphere."
Which brings me to my political answer. Although I have in the past called myself a libertarian, I am currently a socialist libertarian. Since we will soon achieve a technology that will make everyone as gods, I feel that our utmost concern is to prevent people from dying. I would be happy to pay additional taxes out of my salary if I knew they went towards freezing (properly) those who were currently too sick to continue functioning.
Once we've achieved nanotechnology it'll be trivial to develop the ability to bring them back, full memories intact.
I love my grandparents, and the thought of losing them forever simply because they were born a few years too early is heartbreaking.
But what we're seeing so far is the FBI setting up some clowns to take a fall and provide publicity.
Scarier still is they get to send the poor souls off to Guantanamo, never to be heard from again. Be sure to let all your friends know if you're plotting against the government, because you will be disappeared and they'll be the only ones left to vouch for you to the press.
When I say "plotting against the government," it could be anything. Something innocuous, like running for office. Or trying to change the law. Or circumventing the stamp tax by communicating over the internet.
These truly are interesting times. If you told me that the US would become a dictatorship in under 8 years, I'd have laughed at you 9 years ago. Even 5 years ago. Now, be very careful what you say. (Geesh, and I'm violating my stated principles by posting this...)
I agree. It took a while to get to this point; I've now friended enough people (and gave friend-of-friend a +1, as I did to all the various combinations including foes) that I can see some excellent comments that would otherwise have slipped by. Yours, for instance; it was rated a 5 because of the friendship modifiers, and hasn't been moderated (yet).
I haven't been given mod points for over 3 years, and like you I've given up on it. I wish they would at least let me know what caused it and why, and what I can do to regain their trust or whatever.
But it's not as important to me now. Life's not fair, and Slashdot is demonstrating that. I am too; I'm not subscribing.
I wish I had invested, instead of just getting angry, when I first heard about the connection. That was right around the low point; I'd have almost a 1000% profit in four years.
Wow. I wonder how many accounts that currently have Halliburton in them should be investigated by the SEC. And how many actually will be...
Better yet, Halliburton got someone else to fight most of the war for them, and then they get the profits of private business from the war! How cool is that?
Is Halliburton public? I should move my 401K in that direction. (Can't beat em, join em...)
Your last paragraph made no sense. Of course the male won't disregard, and I never stated that he would. My point was, the male gains no benefit from the sex act as the female is already impregnated. But whatever, enjoy your existence calling other people stupid.
I know none of this comes as a shock to anyone reading/. but when will it escape being a truism and start being a concern for voters!?
When there's a qualifying exam for voting, like there should be for parenting.
Yes, I realize there's a whole other can of worms there. But, I just learned that two companies (Diebold and ESS) count 80% of all votes in the US. The punch line? The owners of both companies are brothers. (Actually, one is president, the other is a VP.)
Democracy is dead.
Oh, and don't expect to see close races like the last two. Nor 99-100% like Saddam received. It'll be 60/40 in Republican favor: that's not a landslide, and it's also not "too close" to receive support for a recount.
Did you read my original post that the above is a reply to? It's an (admittedly cold) analysis, from a genetic perspective, as to why males prefer females who have just crossed from the first to the second stage in their reproductive cycle.
Your comment is no comment? That's amusing. I was not talking about men and women in the original, I was talking from an animal perspective; animals have a limited amount of resources and they desire to spend them doing those activities that will most efficiently provide for survival of the organism, and also maximize their offspring. Having sex with a female who was just impregnated by one's competition is wasted effort from that perspective.
Well, the changes in American law will result in turning the American public into terrorists, so it makes absolute (sickening) sense that they will want to read all your email and listen to your phone calls.
Thanks! And, I agree with you on the relative value to society model, although our brains are wired to see faces with large eyes as cute (which is why we don't murder babies when they completely destroy our sleeping patterns).
Tangent: this is why anime is attractive, as the eyes are disproportionately large compared to the rest of the face. Almost every species has this characteristic, which from a developmental view I would imagine means that it's much easier to create eyes fully-formed, than it is to create them small and grow them.
Back from tangent: this is why people react so strongly negatively to your analysis: they are wired to "like" babies more than they "like" young adults, mostly for the same reasons you state: a baby needs to have resources expended on it if it is going to become a young adult, so people accept that.
It doesn't matter how right we are; in today's child porn database thread, someone said a paediatrician was targeted by hate crimes because the mob got confused by the leading "paed" and thought... well, I guess they didn't really think much at all, actually.
While I like the other responder's suggestion in terms of its brutality and "the punishment should fit the crime" thinking, I have a different solution.
Set your computer up to auto-forward incoming email to president@whitehouse.gov.
You know, I was thinking something similar a few days ago. We describe unsavory locations as "crack-houses", but don't use similar terminology when talking about "bars" -- they're not "alcohol-houses".
The act of communication has similar terms that can color the listener's perception, sometimes imperceptibly. Calling someone's speech "rhetoric" makes it sound evil; whereas the term "talking points" means exactly the same thing, but is more polite.
It's weird that this article was posted so soon after I posted my analysis of the (at least) two stages of the female reproductive cycle, and how that affects male behavior in seeking mates.
Even if the shifter were on the steering column (pretty uncommon in cars made after oh, about 1965) [...]
I had a 1971 Dodge somethingorother which had a manual shifter on the steering column ("three on the tree", with the neat mnemonic that backing up was "back and up").
I don't know how long after 1971 they stopped making that model; on a galactic scale, you're accurate.;-)
I don't believe you've refuted my argument at all. You may have modified it somewhat, but there are no gaping holes.
Humans take pleasure in sex; that does not change the fact that human females have (at least) two reproductive stages, and catching the female as soon as possible after she enters the second stage will result in that male's genes being carried on.
You're right in that the "wasted effort" portions can be eliminated when discussing humans.
I was not focusing on the energy expended, although once I typed it for one item I decided to go back and add it to the others, for consistency. I was focusing on the decision by a male to seek out a female who had only just entered puberty. This is the natural way of things; males are more attracted to females of puberty age than they are to, say, females at 40 (even though 40-year-olds are generally still capable of bearing children). I started the post out with "I don't think you'll eliminate pedophilia without eliminating all humans", and I still stand by that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Religions use guilt, and words like "maker" and "what you have done so far with your life".
But, oh, I guess we were discussing my faults. Sorry.
Guilt works, when used properly.
Um, Winona Daily New$... (But I liked the frothing-at-the-mouth bit anyway... ;-)
Calling me names doesn't refute the enormous abundance of evidence. Thanks, though, for bringing me back to my childhood for a spell.
I would love to believe you. Except that a large percentage of the votes are counted by two companies, Diebold and ESS, and two brothers are the VP of one and President of the other.
So if the major party is counting the polls, what's gonna happen? They learned their lesson from the previously-attempted dictatorships; no more 100% like Saddam, and no more close calls that might cause voter concern. The polls will come in between 60/40 and 70/30.
I wish I was writing fiction.
We should achieve full-blown nanotechnology in 10 years or so; 30 on the outside. Nothing short of a full-scale nuclear war will prevent us from acheiving this. Nations may attempt to ban it, but they will fall behind and be made less relevant to science.
It is difficult to predict the future after the Singularity happens, which achieving nanotechnology will bring us basically to (having the Foresight Institute's two achievements required for the Feynman Grand Prize (a computing device and a robot arm) will allow us to quickly develop the ability to reproduce and improve upon the human brain; one way to Singularity is to create an ultraintelligent machine, which is capable of designing better machines, ad nauseum).
My answer, when asked where I will be in 50 years, is generally "around some distant star, setting up a Dyson sphere."
Which brings me to my political answer. Although I have in the past called myself a libertarian, I am currently a socialist libertarian. Since we will soon achieve a technology that will make everyone as gods, I feel that our utmost concern is to prevent people from dying. I would be happy to pay additional taxes out of my salary if I knew they went towards freezing (properly) those who were currently too sick to continue functioning.
Once we've achieved nanotechnology it'll be trivial to develop the ability to bring them back, full memories intact.
I love my grandparents, and the thought of losing them forever simply because they were born a few years too early is heartbreaking.
I think the first step is to not give religious organizations preferential tax treatment. The rest should write itself.
Scarier still is they get to send the poor souls off to Guantanamo, never to be heard from again. Be sure to let all your friends know if you're plotting against the government, because you will be disappeared and they'll be the only ones left to vouch for you to the press.
When I say "plotting against the government," it could be anything. Something innocuous, like running for office. Or trying to change the law. Or circumventing the stamp tax by communicating over the internet.
These truly are interesting times. If you told me that the US would become a dictatorship in under 8 years, I'd have laughed at you 9 years ago. Even 5 years ago. Now, be very careful what you say. (Geesh, and I'm violating my stated principles by posting this...)
I agree. It took a while to get to this point; I've now friended enough people (and gave friend-of-friend a +1, as I did to all the various combinations including foes) that I can see some excellent comments that would otherwise have slipped by. Yours, for instance; it was rated a 5 because of the friendship modifiers, and hasn't been moderated (yet).
I haven't been given mod points for over 3 years, and like you I've given up on it. I wish they would at least let me know what caused it and why, and what I can do to regain their trust or whatever.
But it's not as important to me now. Life's not fair, and Slashdot is demonstrating that. I am too; I'm not subscribing.
Determined, yes. Determined to get themselves voted out of ofice!
Or, perhaps their constituents really want this. Even still, aren't the rights of adults always greater than the rights of children?
Legislation should require neurons.
Well, IMNAL, but I suppose it could be if you're monogamous.
To answer my own question: holy shit!
I wish I had invested, instead of just getting angry, when I first heard about the connection. That was right around the low point; I'd have almost a 1000% profit in four years.
Wow. I wonder how many accounts that currently have Halliburton in them should be investigated by the SEC. And how many actually will be...
Is Halliburton public? I should move my 401K in that direction. (Can't beat em, join em...)
Your last paragraph made no sense. Of course the male won't disregard, and I never stated that he would. My point was, the male gains no benefit from the sex act as the female is already impregnated. But whatever, enjoy your existence calling other people stupid.
Actually, North Korea is developing the Toe Missile.
It just hovers over the city, and causes everyone to start kissing each other.
When there's a qualifying exam for voting, like there should be for parenting.
Yes, I realize there's a whole other can of worms there. But, I just learned that two companies (Diebold and ESS) count 80% of all votes in the US. The punch line? The owners of both companies are brothers. (Actually, one is president, the other is a VP.)
Democracy is dead.
Oh, and don't expect to see close races like the last two. Nor 99-100% like Saddam received. It'll be 60/40 in Republican favor: that's not a landslide, and it's also not "too close" to receive support for a recount.
I wish I was joking.
Did you read my original post that the above is a reply to? It's an (admittedly cold) analysis, from a genetic perspective, as to why males prefer females who have just crossed from the first to the second stage in their reproductive cycle.
Your comment is no comment? That's amusing. I was not talking about men and women in the original, I was talking from an animal perspective; animals have a limited amount of resources and they desire to spend them doing those activities that will most efficiently provide for survival of the organism, and also maximize their offspring. Having sex with a female who was just impregnated by one's competition is wasted effort from that perspective.
Well, the changes in American law will result in turning the American public into terrorists, so it makes absolute (sickening) sense that they will want to read all your email and listen to your phone calls.
Thanks! And, I agree with you on the relative value to society model, although our brains are wired to see faces with large eyes as cute (which is why we don't murder babies when they completely destroy our sleeping patterns).
Tangent: this is why anime is attractive, as the eyes are disproportionately large compared to the rest of the face. Almost every species has this characteristic, which from a developmental view I would imagine means that it's much easier to create eyes fully-formed, than it is to create them small and grow them.
The Eels had a great album cover using this idea, "Beautiful Freak".
Back from tangent: this is why people react so strongly negatively to your analysis: they are wired to "like" babies more than they "like" young adults, mostly for the same reasons you state: a baby needs to have resources expended on it if it is going to become a young adult, so people accept that.
It doesn't matter how right we are; in today's child porn database thread, someone said a paediatrician was targeted by hate crimes because the mob got confused by the leading "paed" and thought ... well, I guess they didn't really think much at all, actually.
While I like the other responder's suggestion in terms of its brutality and "the punishment should fit the crime" thinking, I have a different solution.
Set your computer up to auto-forward incoming email to president@whitehouse.gov.
You know, I was thinking something similar a few days ago. We describe unsavory locations as "crack-houses", but don't use similar terminology when talking about "bars" -- they're not "alcohol-houses".
The act of communication has similar terms that can color the listener's perception, sometimes imperceptibly. Calling someone's speech "rhetoric" makes it sound evil; whereas the term "talking points" means exactly the same thing, but is more polite.
It's weird that this article was posted so soon after I posted my analysis of the (at least) two stages of the female reproductive cycle, and how that affects male behavior in seeking mates.
I had a 1971 Dodge somethingorother which had a manual shifter on the steering column ("three on the tree", with the neat mnemonic that backing up was "back and up").
I don't know how long after 1971 they stopped making that model; on a galactic scale, you're accurate. ;-)
I don't believe you've refuted my argument at all. You may have modified it somewhat, but there are no gaping holes.
Humans take pleasure in sex; that does not change the fact that human females have (at least) two reproductive stages, and catching the female as soon as possible after she enters the second stage will result in that male's genes being carried on.
You're right in that the "wasted effort" portions can be eliminated when discussing humans.
I was not focusing on the energy expended, although once I typed it for one item I decided to go back and add it to the others, for consistency. I was focusing on the decision by a male to seek out a female who had only just entered puberty. This is the natural way of things; males are more attracted to females of puberty age than they are to, say, females at 40 (even though 40-year-olds are generally still capable of bearing children). I started the post out with "I don't think you'll eliminate pedophilia without eliminating all humans", and I still stand by that statement.
So, is that 1337-speak for "Is that you in the closet with a knife?"